Why is Nikon advertising a lowly P&S on TV??

RichA wrote:
Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in them,
is it really economical to flog them on television??

Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?

Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
and I love it.

On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:30:54 -0800 (PST), RichA wrote:
: On Dec 11, 1:52*pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
: RichA wrote:
: Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not the
: P7100, but some cruddy P&S. *I thought there was little money in them,
: is it really economical to flog them on television??
:
: Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?
:
: Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an S9100
: and I love it.
:
: Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
: carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
: ISO performance issues.

Then it's properly referred to as a "lowly superzoom", is it not? Or are all
superzooms ipso facto lowly? You also called the camera "cruddy". That's worse
than lowly, right? If I were a camera, I might not mind being characterized as
lowly (though I might prefer the term "humble"), if my lowliness were a
consequence of my portability, or even of corners being cut to render me less
expensive and therefore more available to the masses. But I think it would
pain me to be called cruddy.

How well have you thought this through, Rich? Enquiring minds want to be both
sensitive and terminologically correct.

Bob

RichA wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:52 pm, "Neil Harrington" wrote:
RichA wrote:
Not the new V/J camera (goofball Kutcher is hawking those) and not
the P7100, but some cruddy P&S. I thought there was little money in
them, is it really economical to flog them on television??

Which "lowly P&S" are they advertising on TV?

Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an
S9100 and I love it.

Technically, it is a superzoom which people buy to avoid having to
carry 2 or more lenses and that portability is paid for in med-high
ISO performance issues.

As with any other small-sensor camera, of course. But the backlighted CMOS
sensor of the S9100 (and some other recent Coolpixes) actually does provide
some improvement in useful ISOs.

Bob Dobbs wrote:
Neil Harrington wrote:

Not all compact Coolpixes are so "lowly." I just recently bought an
S9100 and I love it.

Just read a couple reviews and it sounds impressive

It is. Has some nifty features, and it's just amazing how these pocket-sized
cameras keep getting better and better.